A social worker who first named
Leon Brittan and other VIPs as members of an alleged paedophile sex ring was
jailed for fraud.

Chris Fay, now 69, drew up a list
of prominent public figures he said had visited a guesthouse in London where
children were abused.

The list was uploaded on to the
internet at a time when Tom Watson, now Labour’s deputy leader, was claiming
the existence of a powerful paedophile ring that operated with the knowledge of
Downing Street.

It was compiled by Fay on
evidence he says was supplied by victims and the owner of the Elm Guest House
in south-west London, which has been at the centre of the allegations.

But Fay’s evidence has been
thrown into question by his fraud conviction.

Last week, the Metropolitan
Police admitted it was wrong to describe the evidence of one key alleged abuse
victim, who is said to have witnessed child murders, as “credible and true”.

The Telegraph also revealed last
week that another alleged abuse victim, who also claimed to have evidence of
two murders, had been convicted of making hoax bomb calls, had falsely confessed
to murder and been accused by a judge of telling “whopping lies”.

The Telegraph has now learnt that
Fay was jailed in 2011 for fraud.

Fay, a former Labour councillor,
was sentenced to a year in prison for being part of a scam in which pensioners
were conned out of almost £300,000.

The fraud victims were told they
were buying shares in property and Tesco but were issued with fake
certificates. Fay, of Blackheath, south-east London, helped to launder cash
through false bank accounts.

He had been a child social worker
with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began
compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House.

Mary Moss, a colleague,
circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr
Watson had made his claims in Parliament.

Fay, tracked down by The
Telegraph to his council flat, said his list was based on conversations with
Carole Kasir, the owner of the Elm Guest House, and interviews with abused boys
at NAYPIC.

Fay said Mrs Kasir had been
murdered – she died of an insulin overdose in 1990 – to cover up the abuse.

He repeated allegations he had
been making since Mrs Kasir’s death to Mr Watson in 2013. Mr Watson then passed
Fay’s details to police, which had begun an investigation into Elm Guest House
in December 2012.

Fay said: “My critics will say:
'He is a convicted fraudster so why should we believe the other things [he
says].’”

He added: “It was so wrong to put
that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people
to make up claims.”

'Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague
had posted it on the internet. The two have fallen out.'

First Fay was not a
colleague he was a social worker for Greenwich and an 'informer' to the NAYPIC
re several Greenwich cases, where he alone researched and supplied the list to
the organisation, after meeting several of the organisation's cases when he happened
to be in the office meeting with NAYPIC and then approaching the cases himself
outside of the NAYPIC offices.

Second inaccuracy the police approached a former
NAYPIC development officer Mary Moss to ask for the list Fay had compiled.

Third inaccuracy Fay was banned from NAYPIC in the early nineties following
information given to NAYPIC by their then funding body London Boroughs Grants
Unit.

There was no personal falling out 'of the two', at all, she delivered the
ban, however the information was severe enough for him to be banned since then
and he has had no contact with any NAYPIC staff since.

Fourth inaccuracy; 'He
had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People
in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly
abused at Elm Guest House'

Not true. He did some statistical research for the
organisation where he volunteered to help produce a publication on case
statistics called 'abuse in the care system'.

Fifth inaccuracy; Mary Moss, a
colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months
after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament.

He was not a colleague. I
put the list on the internet because the police knew I still had it. They could
have only got that information from Tom Watson who later claims he only met Mr
Fay two months after Dec 2012 (in this article it is evident in the inaccuracy
in the timeline for any fool to see).

So either Watson is lying, the police
were lying and or the whole thing is a NAYPIC sabotage since we were in a
lucrative court case over our HQ at the time of the police raid at my premises
which produced the list and all the log books at the guest house to which were
given to NAYPIC by Carol Cazier before she was murdered.

Sixth inaccuracy; He
added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts with hunts. That
list could have encouraged people to make up claims.”

The sensitive data with
the list as well as log books from the guest house and banking slips etc, were
taken from me by police in a dawn raid on my house and I only circulated the
documents because they could have been buried.

It was serial complex knowledge,
I felt should be put into the public domain at the time rather than in police
hands only, whom had no more right to the information as did the public, until
such time as the information was investigated by NAYPIC who would then bring
about court proceedings and protection for witnesses, instead of what turned
out to be a shambles.

You have
contacted the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the independent
regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We uphold the
highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the requirements
set out in the Editors' Code of Practice, and provide support and redress for
individuals seeking to complain about breaches of the Code.

IPSO
accepts complaints which have been submitted, either directly to IPSO or to the
publication, within four months from the date of the first publication of the
article complained of. In the case of an online article which remains
accessible to the public on the publication’s website, IPSO may consider
complaints within 12 months of the date of its first publication. IPSO will,
however, take into account the length of time since the publication of the
article, as a delay in complaining may have an effect on IPSO’s ability to
fully investigate or adjudicate on a complaint.

It
appears that the article you have complained about falls outside this time
period and we will not, therefore, be able to assist you further with this
matter. I would suggest that the best way to proceed would be, if you have not
already done so, to contact the publication directly about this matter.

IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine
industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards
of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking
redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice has been
breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in
newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.

PS and from what I know of Fay, I don't doubt the sabotage came partly from him and his cohorts too.

About Me

I would like those who know about abuse to break ranks, whether you are in a society or club or are the head of state I believe you care. So show it. Take direct action on the internet, start a petition under an alias, explode in your own PR very significant abuses in all of our human rights, if you are that clever then educate and give us all a chance to participate but do not do nothing... for when they screw your grand child you will be blamed as an apathetic generation who did nothing even though you knew.. BREAK RANKS THEY DO NOT CARE - ABOUT You and there is always something you CAN do... BREAK RANKS... BREAK RANKS and You yes You too all of you, just do it and be proud to... you owe it to yourself finally